P. N. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two revisional applications under Section 407 of Cr. P. C. have been filed by the petitioner praying for transfer of Misc. case No. 69 of 2003 and G. R. Case No. 222/2003 from the Court of learned SDJM, Arambag, hooghly, to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah. ( 2 ) AS both the revisional applications are concerning same point, I like to dispose of both the revisional applications by this common judgment. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner contended that wife is the petitioner and petitioner was married with opposite party on 5. 4. 2000 under special Marriage Act. The petitioner's father's house is in village samantakhanda within P. S. Goghat, District Hooghly and the opposite party is a resident of Arambag. As the husband started torture after marriage demanding dowry and drove her out, the petitioner has filed two criminal cases; one under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance and the other under Section 498a of I. P. C. for torture on her demanding dowry. The husband, opposite party, is threatening her to withdraw both the cases. She is now residing at Rajendralal Mitra Road in the city of Calcutta and it would be difficult for her to go to Arambag Court to attain dates of cases. Hence, these two applications for transfer of the aforesaid cases from Court of Arambag to the Court of Sealdah. ( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate for the opposite party raised his objections and submitted that petitioner's father's house is within Goghat P. S. under Arambag sub-division. Both the petitioner and opposite party reside within the area of arambag sub-division. Petitioner's parents reside at village Samantakhanda within the sub-division of Arambag. In order to seek transfer of criminal case' from one Court to another Court, there must be specific grounds. The petitions do not disclose any ground for transfer of the cases. There is no allegation that after starting of the cases the husband, opposite party, threatened the wife. Mere thereat to withdraw case is not a sufficient ground for transfer of the cases. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the submissions of the learned advocates of the parties and going through the applications and contends thereof, it appears that the petitioner was married with the opposite party on 5th April, 2000. Mere thereat to withdraw case is not a sufficient ground for transfer of the cases. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the submissions of the learned advocates of the parties and going through the applications and contends thereof, it appears that the petitioner was married with the opposite party on 5th April, 2000. Sometimes after marriage their relation deteriorated and they started living separately. Subsequently, there was an amicable settlement between them and the petitioner returned back to husband's house. But soon, there was differences of opinion between them, and the wife left husband's house and started living in her father's house. it is the case of petitioner that now she resides at 82d, Rajendralal Mitra Road, Calcutta and it is difficult for her to attend Arambag Court. it also appears that petitioner has filed two criminal cases : one being police case being G. R. Case No. 222 of 2002 under section 498a of I. P. C. and the other, application for maintenance under section 125 of Cr. P. C. being Misc. Case No. 69 of 2002. Both the cases, as it appears, are now pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Arambag. ( 6 ) IN order to attract provisions of Section 407 of Cr. P. C. there must be some grounds and the paramount consideration is that fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be made in the Criminal Court subordinate to High court. Merely a ground that the husband wrote letters to her threatening to withdraw the cases cannot be a ground for transfer of the criminal cases. it appears from the materials on record that both this petitioner and the opposite party are residents of the sub-division of Arambag. Petitioner's parents' house is in village Samantakhanda with RS. Goghat, District-Hooghly and the husband's house is at Mayapur Patty near Pansheet Hat, within RS. Arambag. it has not been made clear as to what is the relation between this petitioner and Saibal Kumar Nag under whose care she is alleged to be residing at Calcutta. Her father is Lakshmi Narayan Dey of village samantakhanda and it is not made clear why she is now staying at Calcutta as alleged. Both the cases were filed at her instance and now she wants stay of. further proceeding of both cases and also seeks transfer of the cases. Her father is Lakshmi Narayan Dey of village samantakhanda and it is not made clear why she is now staying at Calcutta as alleged. Both the cases were filed at her instance and now she wants stay of. further proceeding of both cases and also seeks transfer of the cases. Regarding the police case, she has nothing to do as after lodging of F. I. R. it is the duty and responsibility of police officers to proceed with the investiga- lion of the case and she has nothing to take part in the investigation except for interrogation by the investigating officer. in the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. , the best witnesses would be her father, mother, brother etc. , who are residing in village Samantakhanda in the Sub-division of Arambag. Therefore, in neither of the cases I find any sufficient ground for transfer of the cases. Mere threat of husband to withdraw the cases cannot be regarded as sufficient ground for transfer of criminal case from one district to another district. Nothing has been established to show that the petitioner would not get fair and reasonable trial in the Court of learned SDJM, Arambag. There is no ground to allow the applications and both the applications must fail. ( 7 ) IN view of the discussion made above, both the revisional applications fail and are dismissed. ( 8 ) THIS order will govern both CRR No. 2329/03 and CRR No. 2613/03.